ke this assignment to happen even when the Pi
does not have an interface on 192.168.2.0.
It appears I am running dnsmasq version 2.62-3+deb7u3.
The below thread may discuss a similar issue:
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2010q3/004412.html
Thanks in advance f
ian 9 (Stretch).
Thanks,
Parke
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
o
> run in the same machine.
I don't see how multiple instances could provide DHCP if one of the
instances binds to 0.0.0.0:67.
I'd be very surprised if DNSMasq supported the functionality on some
platforms but NOT on Linux.
I will try a minimal config file and see what happens.
-Parke
listen-address? If so, how?
Thanks!
-Parke
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
sible that binding to 0.0.0.0 is necessary to
receive DHCP packets. I lack experience with the mechanics of DHCP,
and with UDP broadcast packets, so I cannot say.
And there is the big question of: Will each incoming UDP packet be
sent to all receiving sockets? Or just to one out of a pool of
re
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Parke wrote:
> And there is the big question of: Will each incoming UDP packet be
> sent to all receiving sockets? Or just to one out of a pool of
> receiving sockets?
Looks like load balancing to me.
>From man 7 socket on Linux:
SO_REUS
I could be wrong.)
Cheers,
Parke
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
